Previous Page
Page:  / 3
Author
Message
dbuster
Member
Offline
Posts: 542
Feedback: 0% (0)
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:21:29 PM
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?
maleante
AUG > AR
Offline
Posts: 13334
Feedback: 100% (120)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:22:42 PM
[Last Edit: 1/16/2013 4:34:32 AM by maleante]
ContrarianIndicator
Member
Offline
Posts: 1197
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:23:02 PM
If we could throw out all the Federal Bullshit and leave it all up to the states, I would be fine with that. The smart states would prosper and have freedom, the dumbass ones like NY would be fail slums until they stopped being so authoritarian.
shocktrp
http://usdebtclock.org/
Military
Offline
Posts: 8032
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:23:20 PM
"Shall not be infringed."
There will always be an 82 Abn Dv because it lives in the hearts of men & somewhere young men will dare the challenge to "stand up & hook up" & know that moment of pride & strength which is its reward
bstonemega
Fo Sho
Offline
Posts: 4003
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:24:23 PM
It's my right to keep, not something that can be taken away by any government, local or federal. It is my freedom.
Smart people talk about ideas, average people talk about events, stupid people talk about people.
jcoffman55
Member
Offline
Posts: 2836
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:24:54 PM
Then the 14th says all the bill of rights apply to all state and local governments. I personally don't agree with the principle as it was added after the civil war, but that is what it says. If the folks up in NY want to roll over for this and keep electing libtards that's their business. We'll run things like we want to down here in GA. That's the way it was designed to work, but the 14th changed all that.
"Ya'll can go to hell, I'm going to Texas"
Undefined
Member
Offline
Posts: 237
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:24:55 PM
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


This.

Go back and read the 10th again... Look for the word respectively.
NoVaGator
No longer in NoVa
Online
Posts: 32598
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:25:15 PM
McDonald v Chicago ya big dope
To see the farm is to leave it
RifleCal30m1n00b
Offline
Posts: 3619
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:25:15 PM
McDonald v. Chicago held that the 2nd applies to states and localities, too, by way of the 14th's Equal Protection clause.
staraero
Wawoowoohoowawoowoohoo
Offline
Posts: 6471
Feedback: 100% (26)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:25:24 PM
I guess the ink smeared where it says but can be infringed by the state yo
JBowles
Always Outnumbered Never Outgunned
Online
Posts: 6726
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:25:38 PM
This is a bit of an internal debate for me, as well. I remain torn on the root issue, however the reality of the situation is the 10th amendment died a long time ago.
You may find me one day dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you\'ll find me in a pile of brass- Tpr. M. Padgett
gonzo_beyondo
on a Buffalooo...
Offline
Posts: 48971
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:25:45 PM
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 11:30:03 PM by gonzo_beyondo]

Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?

I think you should read the NY state Constitution.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm

And http://law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/

Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law provides:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely. -HST
Rider_No2
Offline
Posts: 169
Feedback: 100% (12)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:26:23 PM
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 11:27:17 PM by Rider_No2]
You would be right... if it weren't for incorporation doctrine.

Now if you want to debate the legitimacy of incorporation doctrine, that's another conversation. But the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.


Edit: Came in late.
Top_Secret
Member
Instructor
Online
Posts: 4260
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:26:31 PM
14th Amendment also says hello.
Militias are like strippers, no good comes of it, except militias have fat retards instead of young sluts -Aimless
jcoffman55
Member
Offline
Posts: 2837
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:26:55 PM
Originally Posted By bstonemega:
It's my right to keep, not something that can be taken away by any government, local or federal. It is my freedom.


This, and it was given to all of us by a higher power than government and therefore government cannot take it away, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence make this clear.

"Ya'll can go to hell, I'm going to Texas"
Bladeswitcher
Member
Offline
Posts: 12171
Feedback: 100% (50)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:27:05 PM
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
McDonald v. Chicago held that the 2nd applies to states and localities, too, by way of the 14th's Equal Protection clause.


+1 This was a very big deal. A few years ago, the OP would have a case. Now, no way.
"It's not a goddamned hobby!!!!" (VTHOKIESHOOTER)

In a truly free country, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would be the name of a convenience store, not a federal agency
Renegade13B
Sexual Tyrannosurus
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 16870
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:27:21 PM
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.
ar10er
Offline
Posts: 17237
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:27:22 PM
As are 20k + others.
cbrooks
Offline
Posts: 9888
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:32:32 PM
The bill of rights is a "hands off" list for government on every level.
There is a lot of room for states to do their own thing but within the context of the baseline rules.

States can't infringe on free speech or due process, the bill of rights is the supreme law of the land.
Read up on the supremacy clause and Fourteenth Amendment.
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 33255
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:32:44 PM
14th Amendment.
Prior to the 14th, what you said would be accurate.
The_Macallan
"Typical White Person"
Offline
Posts: 44948
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:32:57 PM
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 11:33:17 PM by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By dbuster:

The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.




NOTHING in that statement is even remotely within the same galaxy of being accurate.


I am not the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I do not surrender my treasures to be flung to the winds as alms for the poor.
~ From "Anthem"
FrankDrebin
Police Squad
Online
Posts: 16998
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:33:19 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.


Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
JAMES77257
WWHBD?
Offline
Posts: 12199
Feedback: 100% (44)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:33:53 PM
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


Your rights were infringed last night.
Barack Hussein Obama is not my president. I will not abide by his unconstitutional policies.
Go Av's!
Atomic_Ferret
RIP Harley
Offline
Posts: 11658
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:34:18 PM
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


And then there is that part.

"There is a time for peace and talk and reason; and then, at long last, and only with sadness of heart and mournful admission that all your wisdom and words have failed, you must go kill you some motherfuckers and set some of their shit on fire"
Weld4fun
Member
Offline
Posts: 165
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:34:30 PM
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


QFT!
DigDug
God Emperor of Dune
Offline
Posts: 26830
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:34:56 PM
So the federal government can't violate a natural right but a state can? No.
"Life is a comedy for those who think... and a tragedy for those who feel" Horace Walpole

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!" Rorschach
occbrian
Member
Offline
Posts: 95
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:35:11 PM
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
McDonald v Chicago ya big dope


DING DING DING
stutzcattle
This far...And no farther.
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 13794
Feedback: 100% (36)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:36:02 PM
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.
Alea iacta est
bstonemega
Fo Sho
Offline
Posts: 4005
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:36:22 PM
Originally Posted By Weld4fun:
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


QFT!


NO.
Smart people talk about ideas, average people talk about events, stupid people talk about people.
nightstalker
In for a Penny, In for a Pound
Online
Posts: 29506
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:37:51 PM
14th Amendment
Heller
DC
CHICAGO
MILLER

Look em up and get back to us.
once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane

Elections, the advance auction of stolen goods.

When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot.
DigDug
God Emperor of Dune
Offline
Posts: 26831
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:38:07 PM
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Natural born rights can not be infringed by anyone.
"Life is a comedy for those who think... and a tragedy for those who feel" Horace Walpole

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!" Rorschach
sav_carguy
Online
Posts: 3644
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:38:09 PM
There are more than 10 Amendments.

The 14th amendment forbids the States from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of Citizens, therefore requiring the States to recognize the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
TangoNoob
Offline
Posts: 294
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:38:26 PM
This is actually one of the most intelligent constitutional Q&A sessions I've read on this site in the past few years.
RifleCal30m1n00b
Offline
Posts: 3620
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:38:57 PM
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Read McDonald v. Chicago, and the 14th Amendment, and get back to us.
Renegade13B
Sexual Tyrannosurus
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 16872
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:39:14 PM
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.


Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


There are no absolutes in law, but what I posted is generally true. It is true enough for the purposes of this thread.
Tony-Ri
John Galt is The Stig
Offline
Posts: 15699
Feedback: 100% (30)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:39:32 PM
Make that argument for the 13th and 1st Amendment and see how far ya get.
Home schooling doesn't make you socially inept, it just makes you awesome enough to do shit people remember centuries later. ~ Frost7

Go Hokies!
FrankDrebin
Police Squad
Online
Posts: 17001
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:40:54 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.


Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


There are no absolutes in law, but what I posted is generally true. It is true enough for the purposes of this thread.


Horseshoes and hand grenades?
ceraldi
FBHO
Offline
Posts: 281
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:41:58 PM
The constitution and its amendments can not be subverted by state laws.
"It is a just person who disobeys an unjust law."
Plato (427-347 BC)
LuckyDucky
Tier 1 Tactical Rubber Ducky
Offline
Posts: 10443
Feedback: 100% (17)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:43:08 PM
Did you read the 14th amendment?
LuckyDucky
Tier 1 Tactical Rubber Ducky
Offline
Posts: 10444
Feedback: 100% (17)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:43:48 PM
Originally Posted By sav_carguy:
There are more than 10 Amendments.

The 14th amendment forbids the States from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of Citizens, therefore requiring the States to recognize the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.


SCOTUS incorporated most of the first 10 amendments via due process, not P&I even though P&I makes more sense...
Forgetfull
Have a spec-TACTICAL day
Offline
Posts: 7166
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:43:55 PM
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 11:45:17 PM by Forgetfull]
Shall not be infringed?


Can states remove freedom of religion and speech?
RIP >Chelsea King-------- http://www.facebook.com/chelseaslight?ref=mf
Renegade13B
Sexual Tyrannosurus
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 16873
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:44:35 PM
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Natural born rights can not be infringed by anyone.


All rights can be infringed.

Natural rights are just as subjective as anything else. The only rights you have are the ones that have been fought for to be protected. A natural right means nothing; protected rights mean everything. The only thing between a protected right and nothing is the people willing to fight for it.

In many places, economic rights (freebes) are a natural right. They fight for it, but I would bet you wouldn't consider free food a natural right.
motown_steve
WAAAAAY back and...GONE!
Offline
Posts: 57993
Feedback: 100% (75)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:45:17 PM
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 11:45:52 PM by motown_steve]
I think that's bullshit
"Do not be fooled by a belief that leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not...they hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear."

-- Stanislav Mishin
shocktrp
http://usdebtclock.org/
Military
Offline
Posts: 8035
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:45:18 PM
Originally Posted By JAMES77257:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


Your rights were infringed last night.


Insofar as an irrelevant piece of paper was signed by a shithead, my rights were infringed.
There will always be an 82 Abn Dv because it lives in the hearts of men & somewhere young men will dare the challenge to "stand up & hook up" & know that moment of pride & strength which is its reward
OC_Gunman
'Anything I say.' What a wonderful philosophy...
Offline
Posts: 125
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:46:13 PM
Wasn't there a civil war or something fought over a matter of some states doing whatever the hell they wanted? To those of us behind enemy lines, sadly, "states rights" has become synonymous with civil (gun) rights violations.
If a fox stole your chickens... Would you slaughter your pig because he saw the fox? No. You would hunt the fox... You would find where it lives and destroy it! And how do we do this? Become a fox.
ar10er
Offline
Posts: 17242
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:46:28 PM

Originally Posted By Atomic_Ferret:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


And then there is that part.



And there are many here, who have stated in no uncertain terms, that people who believe that are retards. I have not noticed many of them posting that lately, and others who have come around, or have they....

AR15fan
Member
Offline
Posts: 57192
Feedback: 100% (48)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:46:45 PM
Heller ruled the 2nd protects handguns in the home.
McDonald incorporated that to the states.

Thats the scope of the 2nd under current case law.
Nothing in this post should be considered information posted in an official capacity. It is the authors personal opinion alone.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 51129
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:47:24 PM
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


I think Cuomos Law violates NYS Civil Service Law

§ 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.


//law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/CVR04_4.html
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
b4MARSOC
Offline
Posts: 37
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:49:00 PM
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


Can you diagram a sentence? If so do so and you will have your answer
bloodsport2885
Use of live ammunition is now authorized
Online
Posts: 8388
Feedback: 100% (16)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:49:33 PM
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 11:53:47 PM by bloodsport2885]
I think you're forgetting that federal law trumps state and that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights afforded EVERY citizen, regardless of state, by their Creator. Meaning the new law in NY is BREAKING federal law and suppressing the inalienable human rights of citizens.
Man has the right to self defense. All those who would use it for nefarious means may they rest in peace. All those who use it to pretect the innocent, may the live in peace.
shocktrp
http://usdebtclock.org/
Military
Offline
Posts: 8036
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:50:31 PM
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Which version is correct?

1. Amendment II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

2. Amendment II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the federal government."
There will always be an 82 Abn Dv because it lives in the hearts of men & somewhere young men will dare the challenge to "stand up & hook up" & know that moment of pride & strength which is its reward
  Previous Page
Page:  / 3